breach of compromise agreement by employer.

Milkshock

Sambucus_Nigra wrote: »

Suing someone IS publishing factual corrections, in essence.

not sure really.

anyway ive realised the error of my ways here, and will endeavour to keep my mouth shut from now on, despite whatever opinions i may have!

SarEl

The clause doesn't limit the employer to only factual corrections though. Just like the original one didn't limit them to saying nothing more than the agreed reference. Far from being a very bad CA it strikes me that it is actually a very good one, written by people who know exactly what they are doing. It's a shame your own legal advice were not as clever as they are.

Milkshock

SarEl wrote: »

The clause doesn't limit the employer to only factual corrections though. Just like the original one didn't limit them to saying nothing more than the agreed reference. Far from being a very bad CA it strikes me that it is actually a very good one, written by people who know exactly what they are doing. It's a shame your own legal advice were not as clever as they are.

probably. im just trying to make the best of a bad job now in essence. hopefully after this episode is over and ive tightened the CA up i can move on with my life.

thanks for the CBT tip by the way, ive made an appointment with my GP this afternoon.

Uncertain

SarEl wrote: »

The clause doesn't limit the employer to only factual corrections though. Just like the original one didn't limit them to saying nothing more than the agreed reference. Far from being a very bad CA it strikes me that it is actually a very good one, written by people who know exactly what they are doing. It's a shame your own legal advice were not as clever as they are.

Absolutely!

Right back at the beginning of all this I had a good deal of sympathy for the OP. Whatever the rights and wrongs of his original behaviour he had entered into a CA with an agreed reference and it was a reasonable layman's assumption that only exactly that reference would be provided.

Unless he was warned of the danger by his legal advisor and / or it was the best that could be obtained in the circumstances they let him down. In theory his true argument is with them although in practice it is almost impossible to action.

Little by little it seems that the employer (particularly as we now know who it was) is not quite a daft as they seemed.

IF, as claimed, they have now agreed to tighten the reference procedure up then this is about the best the OP can hope for.

Sadly though I think the OP still fails to grasp actual real life position. If a prospective employer writes for a reference, gets the agreed response and stops there then it is fine. The moment they go beyond this and attempt to follow up and get hedged responses or no comments they will KNOW there have been issues. In the real world there is NO way round this and it is an inevitable consequence of this type of situation. Obviously if the follow up is by phone, as it so often is, the OP is unlikely to fine out what is said let alone the tone of voice used. Ever heard of a pregnant pause!

Milkshock

Uncertain wrote: »

Absolutely!

Right back at the beginning of all this I had a good deal of sympathy for the OP. Whatever the rights and wrongs of his original behaviour he had entered into a CA with an agreed reference and it was a reasonable layman's assumption that only exactly that reference would be provided.

Unless he was warned of the danger by his legal advisor and / or it was the best that could be obtained in the circumstances they let him down. In theory his true argument is with them although in practice it is almost impossible to action.

Little by little it seems that the employer (particularly as we now know who it was) is not quite a daft as they seemed.

IF, as claimed, they have now agreed to tighten the reference procedure up then this is about the best the OP can hope for.

Sadly though I think the OP still fails to grasp actual real life position. If a prospective employer writes for a reference, gets the agreed response and stops there then it is fine. The moment they go beyond this and attempt to follow up and get hedged responses or no comments they will KNOW there have been issues. In the real world there is NO way round this and it is an inevitable consequence of this type of situation. Obviously if the follow up is by phone, as it so often is, the OP is unlikely to fine out what is said let alone the tone of voice used. Ever heard of a pregnant pause!

you are probably right about the last part, but id still rather have nothing said than everything which is what happened last time!

the issues will arise if the tip off occurs, of course, which i admit is a possibility.

Sambucus_Nigra

Milkshock wrote: »

you are probably right about the last part, but id still rather have nothing said than everything which is what happened last time!

the issues will arise if the tip off occurs, of course, which i admit is a possibility.

Alot of business of done on gut feeling, what's not said is more than important than what is!

Hence my earlier post on what can happen during a phone call to a past employer.

You seem to be putting all your eggs into one basket of a CA that really - holds no water at all as there are always round it AND you have someone out there who is out to get you.

I hope you DO sort out some therapy as running round clutching a piece of paper shouting at people is not going to help you move on.

SarEl

Uncertain wrote: »

Absolutely!

Right back at the beginning of all this I had a good deal of sympathy for the OP. Whatever the rights and wrongs of his original behaviour he had entered into a CA with an agreed reference and it was a reasonable layman's assumption that only exactly that reference would be provided.

Unless he was warned of the danger by his legal advisor and / or it was the best that could be obtained in the circumstances they let him down. In theory his true argument is with them although in practice it is almost impossible to action.

Little by little it seems that the employer (particularly as we now know who it was) is not quite a daft as they seemed.

IF, as claimed, they have now agreed to tighten the reference procedure up then this is about the best the OP can hope for.

Sadly though I think the OP still fails to grasp actual real life position. If a prospective employer writes for a reference, gets the agreed response and stops there then it is fine. The moment they go beyond this and attempt to follow up and get hedged responses or no comments they will KNOW there have been issues. In the real world there is NO way round this and it is an inevitable consequence of this type of situation. Obviously if the follow up is by phone, as it so often is, the OP is unlikely to fine out what is said let alone the tone of voice used. Ever heard of a pregnant pause!

I do agree in part. But there is another factor to consider, which is that many employer assume that the employer is in the wrong if they sign a CA and therefore may not check, or may put little value on what is "hedged". It very much depends on the sort of employment that the OP is looking for. No trades union or employment lawyer, for example, is going to make such an assumption - especially not about this type of former employer. But many other employers will make such an assumption. So it is swings and roundabouts. In some circumstances it may play in the OP's favour, in other it won't. But the OP is finished in this particular sector I suspect - the infamous "telephone call that never happened" is rife, and not even a lowly lay official is "unknown".

A "pregnant pause" - is that maternity leave

Acc72

Milkshock wrote: »

a few days before due to start im contacted to say they have an e-mail from a 3rd party unknown to them but known to me as an ex-employee of the former organisation which has made claims about me

Have you seen a copy of this e-mail to understand what the claims are and also who sent it ?

I am not sure if it is possible, but do the company have to give you a copy of this (including the e-mail address of the sender) if you make a data subject access request ?

You obviously do not want this to happen again in the future. Therefore if the person who sent the e-mail is still employed by the company (particularly if this is confidential and they are in HR), you may be able to prevent this and to get the employer to stick to the CA.

Milkshock

Acc72 wrote: »

Have you seen a copy of this e-mail to understand what the claims are and also who sent it ?

I am not sure if it is possible, but do the company have to give you a copy of this (including the e-mail address of the sender) if you make a data subject access request ?

You obviously do not want this to happen again in the future. Therefore if the person who sent the e-mail is still employed by the company (particularly if this is confidential and they are in HR), you may be able to prevent this and to get the employer to stick to the CA.

ive got the email via data subject access request yes. however i do not have the actual email address only the name of the person who allegedly sent it.

everythings been made clear to ex-employer and its being sorted out now.

you are right to doubt the fact that the e-mail has come from outside the ex-employer, my gut instinct tells me that it comes from within possibly via a home e-mail address. but i have no proof so i cant do anything about it.


lets see what happens when i apply for the next job:)

Acc72

Milkshock wrote: »

ive got the email via data subject access request yes. however i do not have the actual email address only the name of the person who allegedly sent it.

everythings been made clear to ex-employer and its being sorted out now.

you are right to doubt the fact that the e-mail has come from outside the ex-employer, my gut instinct tells me that it comes from within possibly via a home e-mail address. but i have no proof so i cant do anything about it.


lets see what happens when i apply for the next job:)

Glad to hear it is getting sorted.

Was the e-mail address of the sender blanked out when you received your copy from the new company ? - are you not allowed to see this ?

This would identify the person - in case they signed the e-mail Joe Bloggs or whatever !

eg. a HR person should not be sending such e-mails, even from their home e-mail (it would be more interesting if it was sent from their work e-mail !).